After looking around the Atomic Sports Media website, I have noticed very few articles regarding the current hockey season. In fact, I seem to be the only person writing on the subject. Given the post-lockout view of the hockey scene, which commissioner Gary Bettman describes as, “slowly being accepted back into American culture,” I am surprised that very few touch on the subject, and even more important, that people are still not excited about the game. When broached about this subject, my friend Ryan put it very simply: “It’s the little fish in a pond of bigger, better-endorsed fish.”
 
Now I understand that hockey is trying  to make the game more accessible to its fans, increasing scoring, eliminating ties, and even changing the curve of the stick blade, in order for more highlight-reel goals. But is it all worth it? Has any of this really helped the game become more popular, or is the league trying to hide the fact that all it has done is brought back the same fans they had pre-lockout and is still just the small fish in the huge pond of sports, competing with the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball for fans and television ratings.

In an article in the Washington Post in June of 2005, it was stated that while NFL teams can make up to $100 million due to television revenue, the NHL only makes about $2 million per team. Such a descrepency in finances does not seem to show that the NHL is making the comeback it claims. Yet by all other accounts, the NHL is back in force. Goal scoring is up from 5.1 per game to 6.17 goals per game and attendence set a league record last year with nearly 17,000 people in attendence per night. Total revenue for the league was $2.1 billion, or nearly $300 million more than expected. Yet still nobody watches from home. Part of that could be the network through which the NHL hopes to make its gains back into the sports market, OLN.

The Outdoor Life Network, available on some cable television outlets, was primarily used to showcase hunting and fishing shows, and other outdoor events such as bull-fighting. However, upon partnership with the NHL, it became almost the only source for hockey on television. OLN, however, was a very little known television network amongst most households in America. Even now, after the network changed its name to Versus in order to focus on more competitive sports with the NHL as the centerpiece to its marketing campaign, ratings still rank on the lower end of the television rating spectrum according to the Nielson Media Research Group.

So it seems to me that the problem lies not with the game itself, but with the way the game is presented, or in this case, not presented, to the public. By not choosing to go with ESPN, which would surprisingly have caused the NHL to lose profits in the shortterm due to a contractural agreement, the NHL chose to go with a less popular, but more willing outlet to display their product. I feel that the decision to go with OLN will eventually turn out to be a wise business move by Bettman in his quest to bring hockey back to the national spotlight of American televisions. However, for now, until OLN can become broadcast from as many cable outlets as ESPN, ABC, and NBC, the NHL will be forced to wallow in relative obscurity, being referred to as a sport that makes money at the gates, but not on the television sets of people across America.

Swim little fish, swim.